Dumontis

Building Autonomy in Continual Improvement

Just in Time

This is the third and last post in a series of three about knowing whether you are on your way to perfect flow. The better your flow, the more profitable your business will be and the more returns it will deliver. But how to know where you stand in terms of flow? And how to evaluate whether you progressed? This series of three post tries to develop two measures – flow velocity and flow smoothness – as the way to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow. In this third post, I will focus on flow smoothness to complement the flow velocity measure discussed in the second post.(more…)

There are many approaches and methods that focus on improving flow. And for good reason, as improving flow yields improved profitability and returns. But how, in fact, can we determine our level of “flow”? In the first post, the typical ‘flow rate’ measure turned out to be unsuitable to do so. In this second post in a series of three, I therefore introduce flow velocity as a first measure to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow.(more…)

There are many approaches and methods that focus on improving flow. Material Requirements Planning (MRP), Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR) or Simplified-DBR (SDBR), Demand-Driven MRP (DDMRP), Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) and of course Lean’s comprehensive Just-in-Time (JIT) approach share the same objective. In comparing these approaches, however, discussions often concentrate on their inner workings. But they often lack an operationalization of the concept of “flow” which they intend to improve. This series of three post tries to develop two measures – flow velocity and flow smoothness – as the way to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow.(more…)

Demand-Driven Material Requirements Planning, or DDMRP in short, promises to be the first real innovation to MRP since the invention of MRP. Furthermore, in one of its white papers, the Demand Driven Institute states that “Lean Finds a Friend in DDMRP” (2011). DDMRP is positioned as integrating Lean, the Theory of Constraints (TOC) as well as Six Sigma whilst fundamentally innovating the traditional MRP (and DRP) planning approach. What I think of it? Some parts are OK, but most of it still has nothing to do with Lean. In a series of two posts of which this is the second (the first can be found here), I’ll try to explain my views and hope this may help you and your company in making the right decision when looking at your values, your thinking, your philosophy and your strategies.(more…)

Demand-Driven Material Requirements Planning, or DDMRP in short, promises to be the first real innovation to MRP since the invention of MRP. Furthermore, in one of its white papers, the Demand Driven Institute states that “Lean Finds a Friend in DDMRP” (2011). DDMRP is positioned as integrating Lean, the Theory of Constraints (TOC) as well as Six Sigma whilst fundamentally innovating the traditional MRP (and DRP) planning approach. What I think of it? Some parts are OK, but most of it still has nothing to do with Lean. In a series of two posts (the second one of this series you can find here), I’ll try to explain my views and hope this may help you and your company in making the right decision when looking at your values, your thinking, your philosophy and your strategies.(more…)

Within the context of Lean thinking, quite a lot of attention is given to the proper and smart maintenance of equipment and installations; and for a good reason. Poor maintenance, typically resulting in unplanned down-time, rejects and loss of speed, is still an important cause of poor delivery reliability towards customers. And as a result, indirectly, it may also well be the reason behind high inventory levels and excessive overhead cost to still try being on-time.

Total Productive Maintenance or TPM, therefore, also is a well-known theme among capital-intense (semi-)process industries like for instance chemicals, plastics, metals, energy, paper, food and fast-moving consumer goods. And in more and more cases, TPM (either independently or as a part of Lean) is already well under way. But in this post, I don’t want to focus too much on the phase the equipment is already in operation, but rather before we even install the equipment, viz., the design, choice and purchase of the equipment. If we don’t, lots of problems may later arise because of a lack of Lean thinking in the design and purchasing process of equipment. Time for a change therefore; time to move towards Lean equipment and a monument-free future!(more…)

Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) is touted as the answer to Lean for hi-mix, lo-volume environments typically encountered in SMEs like job shops or machine builders. Personally, after having read the book and some papers about QRM, I got interested in QRM for the management of make-to-order products along make-to-stock fast movers, typically managed with the more traditional, anonymous or product-specific kanban (see also an earlier post on pull upstream and downstream op the order penetration point). So when Rajan Suri, Mr. QRM himself, was in the Netherlands last week, I took the opportunity and enrolled in a two-day workshop on QRM with him. Expectations were high, but although QRM does propose some interesting tools, overall it was somewhat disappointing. A post on what to expect and what not to expect from QRM.(more…)

Delivery reliability; there hardly is a company that is not measuring this in one way or another. After all, we all want and need to be customer-oriented, right? Measuring our delivery reliability should enable us to check the achievement of our objectives and taking the proper improvement actions if required.

But this does mean that our measurement should be done thoughtfully. It should represent what we want to achieve and lead to the right, relevant actions. Unfortunately, we don’t often even exactly know what it is what we measure let alone whether this reflects well what our customer is expecting from us. Our measurement may even lead to totally undesirable behavior if we don’t watch out.(more…)

More than 100 flights cancelled and delays of sometimes over 20 hours with consequences for over 76,000 travelers. That was the sad result of Vueling’s planning policies according to an article in last week’s Dutch Financial Times and (in English) in El Pais. Experts stated that Vueling scheduled more flights than they even had airplanes and staff. In between flights they apparently scheduled no safety time meaning that even the slightest hiccup leads to a snowball effect all subsequent flights. In the end, Vueling’s personnel therefore cannot take the required breaks resulting in even further delays and cancellations when the plane needs to be grounded and the personnel needs to rest. This case represents a good example of Kingman’s formula, part of queuing theory, and of how not using these insights results in poor planning, overburdening (Muri) and unevenness (Mura) and in the end disastrous results for lead times and service.(more…)

Kanban implementations are often disappointing and short lived. Companies are promised better service, lower inventories and level demand. But more often the system is abandoned after a short period as it has turned the shop floor into chaos… What went wrong?(more…)